Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128474 Oct 8, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you won't be in traffic court after all.
No.

Not today, and hopefully not at all.

I am respectful of the traffic laws.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#128475 Oct 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Not today, and hopefully not at all.
I am respectful of the traffic laws.
I was talking about your job as a defender in traffic court.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128476 Oct 8, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about your job as a defender in traffic court.
Oh!!
I have no such job.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128477 Oct 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What, that the bishop of Alexandria at the time lead a mob that attacked and killed Hypatia because she had the nerve to be a woman doing scholarship at a pagan temple that dualed as a library?
<quoted text>
The encouraging of the study of ancient texts didn't happen until the renaisance. Until that time, the priests were quite happy to scrape off earlier writings on parchment to replace them by their own records. Fortunately, they occasionally did a poor job and we can recover the originals (like the Archimedes palimpset).
<quoted text>
And this is at least a good point. I would suggest the book by Toby Huff comparing Medieval Europe and the Islamic world at the time. There were certainly institutions in Europe that encouraged the scientific revolution and the church at least occasionally supported those institutions, although always timidly and often retracting its support. Ultimately, it was looking for support of its own dogma and anything that went against that dogma was heretical and would lead to ex-communication. Even Aquinas was ex-communicated. Many of the brave men that lead to the development of logic were priests, but they were also often rejected by the church at the time.
<quoted text>
I am thinking the same about you. You clearly misinterpret history to your liking a lot.
Your views of history, and other facets of life, are very simplified. Just like one would expect of someone that read books without understanding the complexities of the time, and blindly accepts the spin the author of the book puts on the accounts. Human relations were every bit as complex then as now. Your training turns those people into things, not people.

Do a wiki on Hypatia and you will see it was more complex than what you stated. BTW, I believe it was Julius Caesar that burned the library first, the big one. Accidentally.

You are judging without sufficient information and with insufficient judgmental abilities.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128478 Oct 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're an apologist for the Catholic Church.
What next, the Inquisition was like a fraternity prank?
That from a guy that puts all theists on trial and condemns them and their morality according to his. You paint theists as animals, uneducated and dumb. What next if you had the power? Kill them?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128479 Oct 8, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Not if it violates the Constitution.
<quoted text>
Which doesn't change the fact that it still overrules majority rule.
<quoted text>
Nope, they are appointed by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate, who *are* democratically elected.
<quoted text>
Nope. Just as I don't worship Presidents and Senators and Representatives and Governors and County Councils, but I still respect their authority.
Their authority runs your life.

You have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the Supreme Court. No atheists. For life. What if they interpret things a way you don't like regarding religion?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#128481 Oct 8, 2012
Nope. Just as I don't worship Presidents and Senators and Representatives and Governors and County Councils, but I still respect their authority.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Their authority runs your life.
Which doesn't require me to "worship" them.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the Supreme Court. No atheists.
And no Protestants, no Mormons, no Muslims, no Buddhists, and no Hindus. So what? It's not possible for a 9-member body to be representative of every possible religious belief (or of those who lack theistic belief).
Dave Nelson wrote:
What if they interpret things a way you don't like regarding religion?
Then we wait until the makeup of the USSC changes and then bring another case that could overturn the previous ruling. Just as Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128482 Oct 8, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Nope. Just as I don't worship Presidents and Senators and Representatives and Governors and County Councils, but I still respect their authority.
<quoted text>
Which doesn't require me to "worship" them.
<quoted text>
And no Protestants, no Mormons, no Muslims, no Buddhists, and no Hindus. So what? It's not possible for a 9-member body to be representative of every possible religious belief (or of those who lack theistic belief).
<quoted text>
Then we wait until the makeup of the USSC changes and then bring another case that could overturn the previous ruling. Just as Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.
You are confused.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128483 Oct 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
That from a guy that puts all theists on trial and condemns them and their morality according to his. You paint theists as animals, uneducated and dumb. What next if you had the power? Kill them?
Show me where I have done that.

Show me where I have condemned all theists and painted them as animals, uneducated and dumb.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128484 Oct 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Their authority runs your life.
You have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the Supreme Court. No atheists. For life. What if they interpret things a way you don't like regarding religion?
That would be awful.

And it's the principal reason to reelect President Obama.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#128485 Oct 8, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
Some make the connect. i would point out the obvious connections between Exodus and Ipuwer is rejected based on dating only a few understand who probably have the bible down as fictional until proven factual.
It's agreed upon by relevant and legitimate archaeologists and scholars that the Ipuwer Papyrus is a copy of a story that originated hundreds of years earlier based upon references and earlier stories from 1850-1600 BCE, with some portions dating to 2181-2055 BC during the First intermediate period.
lightbeamrider wrote:
The two camps assume different time lines. The Hyskos were the biblical Amelekites. Ermitage is about some catastrophe which happened years ago. If the revisionists were wrong about David why should we assume they are right about Moses and the Exodus?
Yet the biblical details claiming the David rules an empire isn't an accurate depiction, the agreed upon consensus is that based upon archaeological evidence, and if David existed, the region of influence barely qualified as a small tribal kingdom.

Some suggest that David may have been a lifelong vassal of Achish, the Philistine king of Gath.

Hardly the descriptions put forth in the biblical account, which makes you wonder just how accurate anything is in the bible.

Is it nothing but embellishment after embellishment?

Would apologists admit that if it were?

Doubtful.

As a matter of fact, apologists don't, in spite of the evidence.

"Today more than 90% of scholars agree that there was no Exodus from Egypt, 80% feel that that the Conquest of the Land did not take place as described in the Bible, and about 50% agree that there was no powerful United Monarchy." - Professor Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#128486 Oct 8, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to be clear. Naked women appeal to other women as well or am I the only one?
I like in between meal snacks too.:)>
Metal on metal works for a minute , but it will end in a disaster me thinks? What you really mean is you have no use for men, um.....until you need one. You may not need one for everything but you will need one for something. Perhaps you should not deny one that needs you for something too?:)

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#128487 Oct 8, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I always considered the Jews a part of my heritage. Most US males are circumcised. A practice started by the Jews and widely practiced in the United States.
Maybe you should consider that heritage to be Egyptian?

"Sixth Dynasty (2345–2181 BC) tomb artwork in Egypt is thought to be the oldest documentary evidence of circumcision, the most ancient depiction being a bas-relief from the necropolis at Saqqara (ca. 2400 BC) with the inscriptions reading: "The ointment is to make it acceptable." and "Hold him so that he does not fall". In the oldest written account, by an Egyptian named Uha, in the 23rd century BC, he describes a mass circumcision and boasts of his ability to stoically endure the pain: "When I was circumcised, together with one hundred and twenty men...there was none thereof who hit out, there was none thereof who was hit, and there was none thereof who scratched and there was none thereof who was scratched."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_...

Probably.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#128488 Oct 8, 2012
And no Protestants, no Mormons, no Muslims, no Buddhists, and no Hindus. So what? It's not possible for a 9-member body to be representative of every possible religious belief (or of those who lack theistic belief).
<quoted text>
Then we wait until the makeup of the USSC changes and then bring another case that could overturn the previous ruling. Just as Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You are confused.
Funny that you can't seem to demonstrate that.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#128489 Oct 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
I believe it was Julius Caesar that burned the library first, the big one. Accidentally.
Yes, that is correct. he did it when invading Egypt. But, as you point out, it was a mistake. The Christian burning under Theodosius was certainly NOT accidental. The final burning when the Moslems invaded was also NOT accidental.
You are judging without sufficient information and with insufficient judgmental abilities.
Looking in the mirror again?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#128490 Oct 8, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I really didn’t think you were that stupid…
When did I ever say he broke any FU[KING laws in the country he was in?(I do love to see meltdown every now and again). I said he was RESPONSIBLE for making that film. Please LOOK UP the meaning of the word responsible.
It certainly wasn’t me who is responsible for making that film, it probably wasn’t you. It was not any god and it was not joe bloggs in the next town. He made the film, he edited the film (to be deliberately offensive) he is responsible for making it, no one else, just him. It does not matter if he is American or the man from Mars, he made the film, he is responsible for making the film.
That does not excuse murder no matter what the provocation but it does not distract from the fact that HE IS RESPONSIBLE for making and releasing that film.
Oh look at that we can all post in capitals
While I agree with you somewhat , you have to know you are saying that your wearing provocative clothing , makes you guilty of being raped. NOT! Yes wearing provocative clothing is risky , but the being raped because you did wasn't your crime.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#128491 Oct 8, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
The law has nothing to do with it.
Freedom of speech exists, yes, but one must excercise it with discretion.
Think of the blade falling the other way - how many Muslims burnt the American flag after 9/11? It is a statment they made, and they are free to make it.
Just because they MAY make it, does not mean that they SHOULD. I find the film as disgusting as I found the flag burning after 9/11.
People must excercise common sense. If I am white, going to the black part of town and burning a Malcolm X/ Nelson Mandela poster will probably get me beaten up.
Yes, the boy in question has a RIGHT to air his views, even if it is supremacist BS. But we have to accept that our views may incite anger and in some cases, rage.
Just because there is no law against flicking boogers in a restaurant, is no reason to start doing so.
Ok you made up my mind...Muslims have no mind. Best not to provoke them.
Just exterminate them all. After all they cannot accept criticism a joke , a stupid movie, being called on unjust or humanitarian matters, foreigners in their country , anything that upsets their view of Allah, poking fun at Mohammad , taking pictures of then licking their camels ass, Jews praying at the dome of the rock, Jews being in Israel, Jews minding their own business. And Jews Period. Americans anywhere else , Americans anywhere in America , America....The fact they are paid attention, the fact they have not been paid attention.

Seems to me... some people are.. just fucking impossible to get along with.

I have an Idea ....its not Anything you did or said and ''its not what you think . What it is...is stupidity called religion.

Whether you like it or not I'm free to poke muh hah med with what ev Vah tool I choose , including films you do not like.

And if you do not like it... close ya eyes baby.
Because America is free to do this .
Don't like it?
Fuvck you!
That's the way it is..and the way it will always be.

Want me to tell you why now?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#128492 Oct 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that is correct. he did it when invading Egypt. But, as you point out, it was a mistake. The Christian burning under Theodosius was certainly NOT accidental. The final burning when the Moslems invaded was also NOT accidental.
<quoted text>
Looking in the mirror again?
You are an ideologue. You are incapable of seeing things in a balanced way.

I'm just an anti-ideologue.

"Socrates of Constantinople provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria, in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica, written around 440:

At the solicitation of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum.[...] Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples.
—Socrates; Roberts, Alexander; Donaldson, James (1885), "Socrates: Book V: Chapter 16", in Philip Schaff et al., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, II, II"

"Attack of Aurelian, 3rd century

The library seems to have been maintained and continued in existence until its contents were largely lost during the taking of the city by the Emperor Aurelian (270–275), who was suppressing a revolt by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra (ruled Egypt AD 269–274).[27] During the course of the fighting, the areas of the city in which the main library was located were damaged.[2] The smaller library located at the Serapeum survived, but part of its contents may have been taken to Constantinople to adorn the new capital in the course of the 4th century. However, Ammianus Marcellinus, writing around AD 378 seems to speak of the library in the Serapeum temple as a thing of the past, and he states that many of the Serapeum library's volumes were burnt when Caesar sacked Alexandria. As he says in Book 22.16.12–13:

Besides this there are many lofty temples, and especially one to Serapis, which, although no words can adequately describe it, we may yet say, from its splendid halls supported by pillars, and its beautiful statues and other embellishments, is so superbly decorated, that next to the Capitol, of which the ever-venerable Rome boasts, the whole world has nothing worthier of admiration. In it were libraries of inestimable value; and the concurrent testimony of ancient records affirm that 70,000 volumes, which had been collected by the anxious care of the Ptolemies, were burnt in the Alexandrian war when the city was sacked in the time of Caesar the Dictator.
—Marcellinus, Ammianus (1862), "Roman History: book 22.16.12–13", in Yonge, C.D., Roman History, London: H.G. Bohn

5th century scroll which illustrates the destruction of the Serapeum by Theophilus

While Ammianus Marcellinus may be simply reiterating Plutarch's tradition about Caesar's destruction of the library, it is possible that his statement reflects his own empirical knowledge that the Serapeum library collection had either been seriously depleted or was no longer in existence in his own day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexa...

The good stuff was long gone by the time Theophilus did his thing.

Ancient pagan practices were bloody things.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#128493 Oct 8, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said
Every person is responsible for their own actions
If thine eye offends thee , pluck it out! Or I have a towel you can cover your whole head with? So you can't be offended :)

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#128494 Oct 8, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
That's you. Neither would I. How about a mob of angry, agrieved people?
<quoted text>
Certainly. Violence is never condoned, and I think you misunderstood Christine. We don't condone violence, but we do advocate responsible people making responsible statements.
<quoted text>
Of course. But had I been the one spouting supremacist BS/anti-semitism to the wrong crowd and got hurt, I will have to take some of the blame.
<quoted text>
Not normal or not legal?
Unjustified/illegal reaction to emotion is almost expected. Ever here about violence at sporting events? Road rage? Surely, it is not condoned, but one must remember that people are really easy to incite.
<quoted text>
Nope. Not against the customer.
<quoted text>
Then good, you are a human being with empathy. Good for you - really. However, many people lack that.
Screw you DF if you do not like the message, if you do not like the movie.....leave.

And keep your GD hands to yourself, after all it was just a movie.

Now what you are demanding is that I change, when I have placed no demands on you. I only expressed myself how I felt. I am free to do this and have not hurt anyone.
And the response was murder.

Sorry I will murder all of you to be free

to express myself as I wish.

Anything less is not freedom and a demand you have placed on me.

When I start making demands on you , you will understand.
But the only demand I've placed on you is , I've the right to express yourself if you do not like my expression , you have the right to walk away. Or express yourself in rebuttal. much like dis...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 10 min guest 560,343
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min Lumajuice 777,761
Thousands march in Holocaust memorial (Apr '06) 20 min Clear Dharma 39
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 31 min Epiphany2 605,307
Sariyer Samsung Servisi Telefon ( 299 15 34 – 2... 46 min sansungrete 1
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 59 min Johnny 4,871
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 1 hr Mandela 37,843
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 6 hr Kaitlin the Wolf ... 441,810
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 6 hr onemale 265,403
More from around the web